Hi @officestudents @EHRC @EHRCChair @KishwerFalkner @RJHilsenrath @trussliz @GEOgovuk

The Equality and Diversity section of your job application has 'gender' in what appears to be a list of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.

However...

1/15

However, 'gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.

https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u

Sex is the protected characteristic under the Act, but that is not on your list.

2/15
You then ask for the 'gender' of the applicant with options:

Male
Female.

3/15
Again, 'gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.

https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u

4/15
Sex is the protected characteristic and the only two possible options for sex are 'Female' and 'Male' as defined in the Act and consistent with biology, but you don't ask for that.

https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF

'Gender' is not a synonym for sex.

5/15
You then ask "Is your gender identity the same as the gender you were assigned at birth"

'Gender identity' and 'gender' are not protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 and are not defined in the Act.

6/15
'Gender' at birth is a meaningless concept and 'gender' is not 'assigned' at birth: sex is observed and recorded and is immutable.

7/15
'Gender' and 'gender identity' rely on demeaning, regressive stereotypical notions of societal roles for the two sexes, concepts that I'm sure you would not wish to be associated with.

8/15
Asking about a personal characteristic such as 'gender' that is not a protected characteristic under the Act, may be in breach of the GDPR by processing personal - and potentially Special Category - data without a lawful basis.

9/15
If you choose not to gather data on specific protected characteristics (such as sex), you cannot have the information required to ascertain whether or not you could be discriminating on protected characteristics in recruitment. This could be vital in an employment tribunal

10/15
If you choose to discriminate on characteristics (such as 'gender') that are not protected characteristics under the Act, you may inadvertently indirectly discriminate on protected grounds.

11/15
Given these errors and your use of incorrect terms, it's not clear how you can meet your Public Sector Equality Duty or how you have met it in the past given your data could have been corrupted by those who didn't provide their sex.

12/15
Nor is it clear how you can have had due regard to the other duties given the data you have collected.

13/15
Language and meaning of words are important and proper use & understanding of terms is vital so that the public is aware of what rights they have and what your duties are. Any confusion or inconsistency over meaning may prevent people from accessing their rights in law.

14/15
Will you undertake to correct these errors and to review all your other policies, documents, reports, etc to ensure compliance?

Please respond.

https://t.co/RJAWJ1vJ6s

15/15
@threadreaderapp unroll

More from sexnotgender.info

Hi @chelwestft @EHRC @EHRCChair @KishwerFalkner @RJHilsenrath @trussliz @GEOgovuk

The Equal opportunities section in your job application mentions the Equality Act 2010 four times and correctly lists sex as a protected characteristic. However...

1/11


However, you then ask for the 'gender' of the applicant with options:

Male
Female.

2/11

'Gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.

https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u

3/11


Sex is the protected characteristic and the only two possible options for sex are 'Female' and 'Male' as defined in the Act and consistent with biology and there is no way to self-describe one's sex.

https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF

'Gender' is not a synonym for sex.

4/11


Asking about a personal characteristic such as 'gender' that is not a protected characteristic under the Act, may be in breach of the GDPR by processing personal - and potentially Special Category - data without a lawful basis.

5/11
Hi @JesusCollegeCam @EHRC @EHRCChair @KishwerFalkner @RJHilsenrath @trussliz @GEOgovuk

The EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES MONITORING FORM in your job application correctly has sex in a list of protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010

However...

https://t.co/rZk1bAiooU

1/11


However, you then ask for the 'gender' of the applicant with options:

Female
Male.

2/11

'Gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.

https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u

3/11


Sex is the protected characteristic and the only two possible options for sex are 'Female' and 'Male' as defined in the Act and consistent with biology.

https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF

'Gender' is not a synonym for sex.

4/11


Asking about a personal characteristic such as 'gender' that is not a protected characteristic under the Act, may be in breach of the GDPR by processing personal - and potentially Special Category - data without a lawful basis.

5/11
Hi @Census2021 @ons @IanDiamond11 @_datasmith @PhilippaBonay @EHRC @EHRCChair @KishwerFalkner @RJHilsenrath @trussliz @GEOgovuk

The 'Diversity' section of your job application states you promote 'not discriminating under the Equality Act 2010'.

However...

1/11


However, you then ask for the 'Gender' of the applicant with options:

Man
Woman
Prefer to self describe.

2/11

'Gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.

https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u

3/11


Sex is the protected characteristic & the only two possible options for sex are 'Female' &'Male' as defined in the Act & consistent with biology, but you don't ask for that. 'Self-describe' is not a valid option

https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF

'Gender' is not a synonym for sex.

4/11


Asking about a personal characteristic such as 'gender' that is not a protected characteristic under the Act, may be in breach of the GDPR by processing personal - and potentially Special Category - data without a lawful basis.

5/11

More from Society

Patriotism is an interesting concept in that it’s excepted to mean something positive to all of us and certainly seen as a morally marketable trait that can fit into any definition you want for it.+


Tolstoy, found it both stupid and immoral. It is stupid because every patriot holds his own country to be the best, which obviously negates all other countries.+

It is immoral because it enjoins us to promote our country’s interests at the expense of all other countries, employing any means, including war. It is thus at odds with the most basic rule of morality, which tells us not to do to others what we would not want them to do to us+

My sincere belief is that patriotism of a personal nature, which does not impede on personal and physical liberties of any other, is not only welcome but perhaps somewhat needed.

But isn’t adherence to a more humane code of life much better than nationalistic patriotism?+

Göring said, “people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”+

You May Also Like

The UN just voted to condemn Israel 9 times, and the rest of the world 0.

View the resolutions and voting results here:

The resolution titled "The occupied Syrian Golan," which condemns Israel for "repressive measures" against Syrian citizens in the Golan Heights, was adopted by a vote of 151 - 2 - 14.

Israel and the U.S. voted 'No'
https://t.co/HoO7oz0dwr


The resolution titled "Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people..." was adopted by a vote of 153 - 6 - 9.

Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No' https://t.co/1Ntpi7Vqab


The resolution titled "Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan" was adopted by a vote of 153 – 5 – 10.

Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No'
https://t.co/REumYgyRuF


The resolution titled "Applicability of the Geneva Convention... to the
Occupied Palestinian Territory..." was adopted by a vote of 154 - 5 - 8.

Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No'
https://t.co/xDAeS9K1kW
"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."


We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.

Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)

It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.

Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".